Mere Involvement in Office Work and Marketing Activities cant be a Good Justification and Ground to seek for Extension of Time: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere involvement in office work and marketing activities cannot be a good justification and ground to seek and ask for an extension of time.

The assessee in the present case being an individual Mr.Siddharth Rastogi filed the declaration of undisclosed income of Rs. 44,57,940 under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 in terms of the Finance Act, 2016. According to the declaration the total amount payable by the Assessee e towards tax, surcharge, and penalty amounting to Rs. 20,06,074. The Assessee paid only 50 percent of the total amount towards tax, surcharge, and penalty in two installments.

The Assessee did not pay the third installment of the remaining 50 percent tax, surcharge, and penalty which was due at Rs.10,03,036 and accordingly the Assessee submitted a letter before the Chairman of Central Board of Direct Taxes and to get a time extension for making payment of the third installment.

The main reason mentioned by the Assessee in the letter for the delay of payment that, he was pre-occupied by various office activities and he was in the status of the director in three companies and was involved in GST and ERP software. Besides this, he also looks after marketing activities of the company. The Assessee further submitted that the installment matter was slipped from his mind because; he was busy with his business trips.

After considering the submissions of the Assessee, a division bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Chander Shekhar observed that “Mere involvement in office work and marketing activities cannot be a good justification and ground to seek and ask for the extension of time. The Court further ascertained that the Assessee just forget to pay the third installment is unbelievable and a lame excuse”.

The Court further observed that “Amount payable towards the third installment was substantial. Clearly, the petitioners were unable to pay the amount and thereafter have pleaded and attributed it to loss of memory. The time period fixed was mandatory and had to be adhered to and the Assessee has not made out an extraordinary case which would have justified invoking writ jurisdiction and grant of further time beyond the time, even assuming that the time stipulated under the Scheme could be extended by the Board under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If he made such an excuse then as a routine, the extension of time would have to be granted”. But the Court does not find any good ground and reason to issue such notice in the present writ petition. The Court said while dismissing the writ petition filed by the Assessee”.